Discussion about Downsizing the US Military

[Siege]

Look how the lack of options on part of the west totally limited them during the Ukraine crisis. That would not have been the case, if, say, the EU would have been able to flood the west and east of the Ukraine with troops that were capable of resisting any Russian pressure after the invasion of the crimea.

While that may be true, I'm frankly not sure I want the EU to have the capability to do such a thing, much less use it in this way. It'd be a massive escalation of an already complicated situation on behalf of a country that isn't a member state, won't be a member state any time soon, and frankly brought much of its trouble on itself. I see zero benefit in further antagonizing Russia by hurtling ourselves into some kind of Mexican standoff on behalf of an interim government that barely has its own shit together and whose democratic legitimacy is questionable at best.

On the other hand I can get behind the idea that European countries ought to pick up some of the slack in terms of military expenditure, and I agree that it'll be a while before Europe could even contemplate something like this hypothetical intervention. There's very serious chain of command and democratic accountability issues with the concept of a EU troop force that need to be worked out in detail before Brussels should ever be allowed to deploy troops to a hotspot like Ukraine.

Ultimately though we'd do well to keep in mind the old adage that once you have a hammer, lots of problems start looking like nails. so for now I'm quite happy the EU isn't able to deploy military force, because much as Europe ought to pull its weight the fact it doesn't at least firmly rules out poorly thought out military adventurism.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem with saying "good, having a minimal army means we can't engage in adventurism" is that it's hard to be sure 5-10 years in advance whether you're going to need to engage in some well thought out military adventurism.

As an illustration, Britain started assuming explicitly in 1919 that its armed forces would not have to fight a major war for a decade- this became later known as the "Ten Year Rule." As a result of this assumption they felt justified in making major military budget cuts, vastly reducing the size of the army and considerably reducing the navy. They kept renewing this assumption, year by year, throughout the 1920s and into the 1930s. It was not until 1932 that the ten year rule was abandoned, and even then it was several years before any major increase in military spending began (to be fair, that was partly the Depression's fault).

Thing is, by 1938 the international situation looked very different than it had in 1919 or 1929, and Britain's ability to defend itself, let alone anyone else, from very real aggressive threats was in doubt.


Your obvious reply would be "well yeah, I don't foresee anyone being as big a threat to Europe at large as Hitler was to Britain for the next ten or twenty years." And that's sensible, there's some truth to it. Sometimes a Ten Year Rule is actually quite accurate.

The problem is that deliberately avoiding having the firepower to do anything about a difficult foreign situation is inherently a gamble. If you win, you avoid the cost of unnecessary wars, assuming you'd be so irresponsible as to get into such wars in the first place.

If you lose the bet, the consequence might just be a decline in national standing and the creation of hostile, foreign empires built out of lands near yours. On the other hand, it may be the equivalent of watching the jackbooted blocks of men march down the Champs Élysées.

[Thanas]

If asked to do so by the internationally recognized head of state, then that is not an invasion at all. For example, if Poroshenko - who even Russia admits to be the democratically elected leader of Ukraine - asks the EU to intervene and to crush the rebels in the east, then that is not an invasion.

So what if Yanukovich asked Russia to invade? (He did not - to his honor, even if he's otherwise pitiful). It would not be okay.

No, it would not, precisely because he was not the legitimate internationally recognized head of Government at that point anymore. But then again, that is not the situation you have in eastern Ukraine, where you got mainly bands of Russia-organized seperatists doing everything they can to stoke the flames.

I know. When there's a UNSC member invading or opposing invasion, there's hardly a way to make it a UNSC decision.

Yeah, so blue helmets are automatically out. Which leaves Nato and the EU.

While that may be true, I'm frankly not sure I want the EU to have the capability to do such a thing, much less use it in this way. It'd be a massive escalation of an already complicated situation on behalf of a country that isn't a member state, won't be a member state any time soon, and frankly brought much of its trouble on itself. I see zero benefit in further antagonizing Russia by hurtling ourselves into some kind of Mexican standoff on behalf of an interim government that barely has its own shit together and whose democratic legitimacy is questionable at best.

The current government is legitimized. And I think it is better to have a capability and not use it than to need it and not have it. Limiting your options from the start is not a good way to conduct your business as a government.

Ultimately though we'd do well to keep in mind the old adage that once you have a hammer, lots of problems start looking like nails. so for now I'm quite happy the EU isn't able to deploy military force, because much as Europe ought to pull its weight the fact it doesn't at least firmly rules out poorly thought out military adventurism.

True, though I would contest that the decision to use force is based primarily on the psychological makeup of the decision makers. I do not think the EU will suddenly start to become imperialistic just because it has capabilities it did not have before. That would require overcoming a lot of reservations from the populace.

But what is your alternative? Being more and more dependent on the USA to the point that we cannot criticize them because they got us by our balls? That is not a relationship of equals, primarily because the fact is that the EU needs the USA more than vice versa. Are you happy being a US vassal?

[K. A. Pital]

Before he fled the country, Thanas, he was a legitimate and recognized head of state. However, intervening on his behalf would constitute an invasion nonetheless. You should know it is always easy to legitimize invasions by making it so a part of the government in political crisis calls the 'big brother' for help. There's little good about it, even if it seems legit.

[Lonestar]

What I'm really saying is none of this is new, unpredictable or all that unreasonable in the end. We can go back a century and find the exact same sorts of arguments being made and problems found, and everywhere in-between.

Hell, you could go back to the original 6 frigates built for the USN, which ended up running near 4-times the estimated cost per unit, in part because of USN insistence on "goldplating" them with widespread use fo oak and dividing work between 6 shipyards in 6 different states.

Stop me if the process sounds familar to the current way of doing things. It's literally how the US military has procured stuff since Day One.

[Siege]

But what is your alternative? Being more and more dependent on the USA to the point that we cannot criticize them because they got us by our balls? That is not a relationship of equals, primarily because the fact is that the EU needs the USA more than vice versa. Are you happy being a US vassal?

My alternative is dealing with our own internal issues first before getting mixed up in problems abroad. It's one thing to deploy Eurocorps to keep the peace in Bosnia, it's something else entirely to deploy EU troops under direct command of Brussels to a hotspot like Ukraine.

It's all well and fine to postulate that in ten years there may be a situation where a bigger pan-European force is necessary, but even if that's the case then we still need to first solve the myriad issues with such a force before having it. Where are these troops going to come from? Who's paying for them? Under whose command will they be? Who will make the decision to deploy them, and who will be democratically accountable for them? I'd have serious issues with troops deployed on, for example, the say-so of the High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This is a person chosen by one member state, who can only be dismissed by the European Parliament, a body that has historically suffered from extremely low turnout during elections. Will this be the mechanism that can leverage all of the EU into a war? Because fuuuuck that.

Hell, I'm not sure I want the ability to make war on behalf of my country given to Brussels at all. The power to declare war is one of the highest sovereign prerogatives. It should be amongst the very last rights to be ceded to the EU if we collectively decide to go all the way down the road to federalization. And if that's going to happen at all is an open question right now.

My point is, if we're going to have an army, we're bloody well going to first properly settle if Brussels has a right to the legitimate use of physical force first, and then we're going to make sure this army is properly accountable to the people in a clear and succinct manner. Anything less and we're better off not having an army at all.

Relying on the US for a few years more is infinitely preferable to a headlong rush into the unknown because we're afraid the Russians could be coming. Fear is a bad adviser, and this is not a joking matter. This issue hits at the core of what the EU is for and what intends to be in the future. And that is far more important than showing off to the USA or Russia or whoever that we can build an army too.

If you'll allow me to draw a parallel, I don't think the USA when it was building its security apparatus ever stopped to consider if it was right or just or fundamentally desirable to have the ability to trawl every e-mail and listen to every phonecall in the world without adequate democratic guardianship. Someone must've thought it was a good idea, stewardship was left to opaque oversight committees, congress never had an open debate on PRISM and suddenly here we are, with half the world screaming bloody murder about the invasion of their privacy whilst the government rushes to cover the mess under the blanket of 'national security'. That's the sort of situation you find yourself in when you let abilities escalate without ensuring transparancy, ironclad oversight and clearly defined boundaries and accountability checks first.

What's more, PRISM happened in the USA, an actual federal state with hundreds of years of precedent to determine what the government is and is not allowed to do. The EU does not have that kind of history behind it. We're making it up as we go. I feel very strongly that before any step we take, but especially one as radical as establishing a centralized army, we need to have an open and comprehensive discussion about whether we want this new capability, what it will be used for but also what it will not be used for, who will be held accountable for its use and how. I absolutely, fundamentally disagree with establishing any kind of army before these matters are settled by broad pan-European consensus. Yes, that may mean that in ten years we do not have the capability we need. But it will also hopefully mean that in ten years we don't accidentally slide the whole bloody continent into a giant war because we were so damn eager that we didn't stop to have a think and a chat about how to go about implementing and handling this shiny new army of ours.

[K. A. Pital]

Also, wouldn't the creation of a centralized army that can be deployed on an order from a single individual in Brussels be the perfect argument for Eurosceptic parties? They're getting enough votes in the EP as it is. Imagine the discontent if poor Europeriphery is forced to not only provide manpower but also pay out of their pockets for this huge common army that they don't even control.

[Thanas]

Siege, your objections are well founded. But none of the solutons proposed require a centralized army. The main issue is not one of "the EU does not have an army yet", but one of "EU States are woefully underfunding the military". There are at least four nations (Poland, Germany, France, UK) who can build up strong armies. It does not require a centralized EU Force, though having that would probably be an important cost saver and an important step towards further integration. One would think these nations would be able to fund a better army than Russia but atm Russia clearly has an edge IMO.

[LaCroix]

Underfunded to the point that the Austrian military is afraid they will not be able to even fuel their vehicles by the end of year...